scholarly journals U.S. Refusal to Appoint Members Renders WTO Appellate Body Unable to Hear New Appeals

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (3) ◽  
pp. 518-525

Over the last few years, the United States has been pressuring the World Trade Organization (WTO) to reform the Appellate Body by refusing proposals to fill vacancies. On December 10, 2019, the terms of two Appellate Body members expired, leaving one member left for the seven-member body. This has brought new appeals to a standstill, as an appeal from a panel established by the Dispute Settlement Body must be heard by three Appellate Body members. In February of 2020, the United States elaborated on its complaints about the Appellate Body in a report published by the Office of the United States Trade Representative. In the spring of 2020, in response to the continued U.S. resistance to filling vacancies on the Appellate Body, a group of WTO members established an interim arrangement to handle appeals through arbitration. Also in the spring of 2020, the United States described as invalid a recent Appellate Body report regarding a dispute between Canada and the United States, asserting that none of the three persons who issued the report were in fact bona fide Appellate Body members.

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (4) ◽  
pp. 822-831 ◽  

With only three remaining members of what is supposed to be a seven-member body, the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Appellate Body may soon cease to function. Since 2016, the United States has blocked the reappointment of Appellate Body members and rejected over a dozen proposals to launch selection processes that could fill the remaining vacancies. As a lead reason for these blocks, the United States has cited concerns about the practice whereby members whose terms have expired continue to serve on appeals to which they were previously appointed. On December 10, 2019, the terms of two Appellate Body members will expire, leaving only one member remaining. Because the WTO's dispute settlement process requires three Appellate Body members for each appeal, WTO members will be unable to make any new appeals by this year's end unless a solution emerges to the current impasse.


2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 316-321
Author(s):  
Richard H. Steinberg

The Appellate Body (AB) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is facing a crisis. Appointment of AB members requires a consensus of the Dispute Settlement Body (comprised of all WTO members), and the United States has been blocking a consensus on further appointments since Donald J. Trump became the president. Without new appointments, the ranks of the AB have been diminishing as AB members’ terms have been expiring. If this continues (and many expect the United States to continue blocking a consensus on appointments), then in December 2019, through attrition, the number of AB members will fall below the threshold necessary to render decisions, at which point the AB will cease to function.


2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (1) ◽  
pp. 192-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Shaffer

In a Mexican challenge against U.S. criteria for labeling tuna products as “dolphin-safe,” the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO), on May 16, 2012, held against the United States while reversing various findings of the panel. The case was one of three WTO Appellate Body decisions issued in 2012 that interpreted and applied the key substantive provisions of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement or TBT) for the first time. Systemically, the decision is important for its interpretation of the TBT Agreement’s substantive obligations, the types of labeling that fall within the scope of the Agreement, the legitimacy of labeling based on foreign process and production methods (PPMs), and the relation of other international law to WTO law.


2005 ◽  
Vol 4 (S1) ◽  
pp. 78-87
Author(s):  
Gene M. Grossman ◽  
Petros C. Mavroidis

In United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities (WTO Doc. WT/DS212/QB/R, henceforth Certain Products), the Appellate Body (AB) of the World Trade Organization was called upon to revisit the issue of whether the United States can legally impose countervailing duties following the privatization of state-owned enterprises that had received non-recurring subsidies. In twelve cases, the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC) had applied either the “gamma method” or the “same-person method” in assessing the impact of a change of ownership on the continued existence of a benefit from a countervailable subsidy. The European Communities challenged the legality of these methods.


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 146-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tania Voon

Abstract Two of the four disputes against Australia’s tobacco plain packaging in the World Trade Organization (WTO) have been resolved, with the adoption of the Panel Reports upholding Australia’s tobacco plain packaging scheme with respect to Cuba and Indonesia. The fifth dispute, brought by Ukraine, was previously abandoned. The Panel’s decision deserves close examination, particularly regarding the balance between WTO Members’ legitimate policy objectives and restrictions on trade or on the use of trademarks. The Panel’s approach to the fundamental concepts of trade-restrictiveness and unjustifiability did not conform with the arguments of Australia or the complainants. These areas represent core aspects of the ongoing appeals by Honduras and the Dominican Republic. Although Australia did not appeal, its own arguments before the Panel provide further insights into the Panel’s approach. The significance of the Panel Reports is heightened by the continuing United States blockage of appointments to the WTO Appellate Body.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document